Studies in Language, Literature and Translation (SLLT) applies a double-blind peer-review policy to all submitted manuscripts. This ensures that neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other’s identities throughout the review process. An outline of our editorial and review procedures is provided below.
1) Initial Editorial Screening
When a manuscript is received at the editorial office, the Editor-in-Chief performs an initial screening to determine its suitability. Evaluation at this stage considers the following:
Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
Compliance with manuscript guidelines (word limit, formatting, and clarity of language)
Overall research quality and thematic relevance
Contribution, originality, and potential interest to our readership
If the manuscript fails to meet these basic requirements, the authors may be asked to revise and resubmit in accordance with the journal’s criteria. In some cases, the Editor-in-Chief may issue an immediate rejection. Manuscripts rejected at this stage typically contain serious methodological issues, lack originality, fall outside the scope of Studies in Language, Literature and Translation (SLLT), or do not meet academic writing standards. Early rejection enables authors to submit their work promptly to a more suitable venue.
2) Peer Review Stage
Manuscripts that successfully pass the desk review are assigned to two subject-matter experts for double-blind review. Reviewers are initially contacted with the abstract and invited to evaluate the submission. Once they agree, they receive access to the full manuscript and are typically given 2–3 weeks to complete their evaluations.
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect impartiality.
Each reviewer completes a structured evaluation form, addressing:
Originality and contribution to the field
Relevance to current research and scholarly value
Strength and clarity of the theoretical framework
Ethical considerations and research integrity
Design, methodology, and data analysis
Quality of argumentation, discussion, and conclusions
Adequacy of the literature review and references
Organization, structure, and adherence to author guidelines
Reviewers also provide constructive, anonymous comments for the author(s). Where necessary, a second round of review or an additional reviewer may be sought, particularly when initial expert opinions contradict one another.
Review recommendations typically fall into one of the following categories:
a) Accept without revision – Suitable for publication in the current form
b) Accept with minor revisions – Requires limited corrections before publication
c) Accept with major revisions – Substantive issues must be addressed
d) Reject – Not suitable for publication in the journal
3) Revision Stage
If revisions are requested, the manuscript is returned to the author along with the reviewer feedback and evaluation forms.
Minor revisions: authors are normally given one week to respond
Major revisions: authors are generally allotted two weeks to revise
Authors should respond to each reviewer's comment systematically and transparently.
4) Final Editorial Decision
Upon receiving the revised manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief verifies whether the author(s) have satisfactorily addressed the reviewer comments. At this final stage, further revisions may still be requested. If revisions are not adequately implemented, the manuscript may be rejected.
5) Copyediting, Typesetting, and Proofreading
Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting, layout preparation, and proofreading to ensure clarity, consistency, and linguistic quality. Authors are then asked to carefully review the final proof (PDF) before publication to ensure there are no remaining errors.
6) Complaints Policy
Studies in Language, Literature and Translation (SLLT) is committed to resolving complaints promptly and transparently. Our procedures aim to balance fairness to the author submitting a complaint and fairness to the individuals or reviewers involved. All complaints will be handled professionally and confidentially.
7) Appeals
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should contact the Editor-in-Chief at:
The Editor-in-Chief will review the manuscript, the peer reviewers’ reports, and any related correspondence to determine whether to uphold or reverse the editorial decision. If necessary, additional reviewers may be consulted. The decision made following the appeal process is final. All appeals will be acknowledged within two business days.